36th Annual Symposium March 18-20, 2021 - American College of Forensic Psychology - American ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
American College of Forensic Psychology
In Collaboration with Fielding Graduate University
36th Annual Symposium
March 18-20, 2021
To Be Presented Virtually on Zoom
Fielding Graduate University is approved by the American Psychological Association to
sponsor continuing education for psychologists. Fielding maintains responsibility for this pro-
gram and its content. This program will offer a maximum of 21 hours of Continuing Education
credits.
The American College of Forensic Psychology certifies that this activity has been approved
for 21 hours of MCLE credit by the State Bar of California.
Goal: The goal of this symposium is to keep forensic psychologists abreast of important issues
which lie within the interface of psychology and law, recent developments in psychology that re-
quire new knowledge for expert witnesses, and new case law affecting forensic practice. Target
Audience: The program is intended to benefit practicing forensic psychologists, psychologists in
other subspecialties, and attorneys who litigate civil and criminal cases involving psychological
evaluations and expert testimony. Objectives: Participants should improve their knowledge and
skills in the following areas: (a) evaluation or treatment of forensic litigants and individuals with
other forensic psychological issues; (b) new and ongoing research and developments in the field
of forensic psychology; (c) relevant concepts useful in testifying and educating the court on men-
tal health issues, and in working within the legal system; (d) changes in the law that affect clinical
and forensic practice; (e) legal and psychological aspects involving the mentally disordered in-
mate in correctional facilities.
Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest or Relevant Financial Relationships: The
American College of Forensic Psychology does not receive financial or commercial support. All
faculty members were asked to disclose potential conflicts of interest, or relevant financial rela-
tionships with any commercial interest. All of the faculty indicated they have nothing to disclose.
All times listed are Pacific Daylight Time.
PRELIMINARY PROGRAM
Thursday, March 18
7:45-8:00 Welcome Address and Announcements
8:00-12:15 (PDT) Civil/Juvenile Issues (4 CE credits)
After attending the following 5 presentations in this session, the participant will be able to: 1) list 7
pillars of RDoC and compare and contrast DSM-5 with RDoC; 2) discuss the importance of past life
adversity on future mental health and risk for subsequent psychological injuries; 3) describe what
constitutes harassment in the workplace and why it is underreported; 4) discuss a new evaluation
protocol that is specific to cross over sex offender/domestic violence offenders; 5) describe the crimi-
nogenic versus sexual risk of sex traffickers, and how to screen for juveniles who might be at risk for
being lured into the world of becoming a sex trafficker.
18:00-8:45
Beyond DSM-5: The future of psychiatric/psychological diagnoses
Donna M. Veraldi, Ph.D.
In 2009 the National Institute of Mental Health began a project to develop a research-based classi-
fication system for mental disorders. The Research Domain Criteria project (RDoC) supports re-
search to develop diagnoses based on underlying components, rather than clinical observations.
This ambitious project seeks to identify disorders by combining knowledge from genetic and epi-
gentic research, along with information from neurosciences and behavioral observation. This di-
agnostic system was not able to be incorporated into DSM-5 and will take more time to develop,
but it should revolutionize our understanding of mental disorders and their treatment. The 7 pil-
lars of RDoC will be discussed; DSM-5 will be compared and contrasted with the RDoC; research
about the genetic basis of psychiatric disorders will be presented.—Donna Veraldi, Ph.D., in pri-
vate practice in Billings, Montana for over 30 years, has been involved in a wide variety of forensic
cases.
8:45-9:30
Case studies in psychological injury claims
William J. Koch, Ph.D.
This presentation describes psychological injury claims from a diversity of contexts (MVAs, sexu-
al assault, slip and fall) and addresses a variety of forensic issues (good old days bias, cultural dif-
ferences on psychological tests, use of social media data in opinions). Relevant background re-
search will be reviewed. Attendees will be able to discuss: (a) psychological issues commonly aris-
ing from sexual assault, MVAs and slip and fall injuries; (b) reliability issues in autobiographical
memory of personal injury claimants and the assessment of same; (c) ethical and practical issues
in using social media data.—William J. Koch, Ph.D., ABPP is a clinical and forensic psychologist,
specializing in the assessment and treatment of PTSD, anxiety disorders, and depression. He has
published widely across trauma-related and anxiety disorders, and depression.
9:30-9:45 Break
9:45-10:30
Unfair termination as consequence of reporting workplace harassment
Inés Monguió, Ph.D.
The majority of people harassed at work are women, but not all. Women tend to not report har-
assment, particularly if the harassment has sexual elements. Men and women alike face ostracism,
reprisal, and even termination after reporting the harassment. The effects on the psychological
well being of a person who has been terminated unfairly as retaliation for reporting harassment
can be devastating. This presentation will review relevant research, and delineate areas for the
forensic psychologist to inquire and assess. Various cases will be offered to illustrate the issues in
this type of evaluation.—Inés Monguió, Ph.D. has been working in the forensic arena since 1990,
with an emphasis in neuropsychology. She is in private practice in Ventura, California.
10:30-11:15
The life cycle of sex trafficking and the Sex Trafficking Offender Prevention (STOP)
screening measure for juveniles
Brenna Dee Tindall, MA, Psy.D. and Christian Gardner-Wood, J.D.
This presentation will explore four intervention phases of the sex trafficking process in Colorado
(investigation, prosecution, evaluation, and treatment). Recently, Colorado prosecuted one of the
most infamous traffickers in U.S. history, Brock Franklin, who received a sentence of over 500
years in prison. The advent of more sophisticated traffickers in Colorado has impelled improve-
2ments in preventative measures and development of a more thorough evaluation process. This
presentation will: 1) discuss a new sex trafficking-specific evaluation protocol; 2) discuss com-
monalities of sex traffickers in Colorado over the past few years; 3) present results of data from
over 50 sex trafficker evaluations; and 4) introduce a possible juvenile screening tool.—Brenna
Tindall, Psy.D., co-owner of Tindall, Bartels & Associates in Colorado, specializes in forensic evalu-
ations of individuals in the criminal justice system. Christian Gardner-Wood is a Senior Deputy
District Attorney for the First Judicial District in Colorado, and is currently the Human Trafficking
Prosecutor for the First Judicial District.
11:15-11:30 Break
11:30-12:15
Parental competency to waive Miranda for a juvenile defendant: A case study
Rebecca Smith-Casey JD/PsyD
Utilizing a case study format the current presentation will analyze issues surrounding the compe-
tency of a parent with an intellectual disability to waive the Miranda rights of their juvenile child.
The case study will focus on an evaluation requested by a public defender where the evaluation
focused on the question of whether the parent’s underlying developmental disability rendered the
parent not competent to waive Miranda rights for his child, therefore rendering the Miranda
waiver invalid. The presentation will consider means for conducting such an examination, con-
siderations for attorneys in examining the validity of waiver provided by parents with intellectual
disabilities, and summarize the case at issue for illustrative purposes.—Rebecca Smith-Casey,
JD/PsyD conducts psychosexual evaluations in Philadelphia, as well as working in private practice
engaging in forensic evaluations. Dr. Smith-Casey is the author of the New Jersey Competency As-
sessment Tool (NJ-CAT).
12:15-1:00 Lunch Break (12:30-12:50 Breakout social chat rooms—
Chat with your colleagues and friends.)
Room 1—
1:00-4:15 (PDT) Domestic Violence/Sexual Abuse (3 CE credits)
After attending the following 4 presentations in this session, the participant will be able to: 1) identi-
fy characteristics and risk factors associated with domestic abuse/filicide and escalation of violence,
and identify legal and ethical obligations in reporting suspected domestic abuse; 2) describe the psy-
chological profile of a maternal perpetrator of sexual abuse, and how it differs from other perpetra-
tors of sexual abuse; 3) analyze sexual offense recidivism in a population of previously adjudicated
sexually dangerous persons; 4) analyze issues surrounding the competency of a parent with intel-
lectual disability to waive the Miranda rights of their juvenile child.
1:00-1:45
Domestic abuse and filicide: Protective measures and parenting fitness evaluations
Valerie McClain, Psy.D., Elliot Atkins, Ed.D., Mark D. Ackerman, Ph.D., Michael Wiltsey, Ph.D.
This presentation will focus on identifying common factors in parents who abuse and kill their
children. Relevant literature will be presented concerning psychological characteristics and mo-
tives associated with child abuse and filicide. Guidelines for conducting psychological evaluations
for parenting fitness will be addressed to include providing specific interview and appropriate
assessment tools. Case examples of filicide will be presented to illustrate psychological characteris-
tics and risk factors that can be used in prevention strategies based on review of APA guidelines
for reporting abuse. Attendees will be able to identify: 1) characteristics and risk factors associated
with domestic abuse/filicide and escalation of violence; 2) legal and ethical obligations in report-
3ing suspected domestic abuse; 3) appropriate assessment tools to use in conducting parenting fit-
ness evaluations; and 4) mitigating factors relevant for sentencing.—Valerie R. McClain, Psy.D. is
in private practice in Tampa, Florida. Elliot Atkins, Ed.D. is in private practice in Pennsylvania and
New Jersey. Mark D. Ackerman, Ph.D. is a licensed psychologist and holds faculty rank at Atlanta
Department of Veterans Affairs and Emory University School of Medicine. Michael T. Wiltsey,
Ph.D. is Director of the Center for Forensic Psychology at The Center for Emotional Health in Cher-
ry Hill, New Jersey.
1:45-2:30
Blind spots: Challenges in evaluating and navigating cases of mother-daughter sexual abuse
Christine Hatchard, Psy.D. and Jamie Goodwin-Uhler, Ph.D.
This presentation will explore the personal and cultural biases that contribute to the underreport-
ing of mother-daughter sexual abuse, and provide guidance on how to evaluate alleged incidents
within a broader conceptualization of sexual abuse. The profile of sexually abusive mothers and
their unique family dynamics will be explored, and research and case examples will be presented.
Attendees will learn how to identify incidents of sexual abuse perpetrated by mothers against
daughters, describe the psychological profile of a maternal perpetrator, and explain the potential
challenges of evaluating and navigating cases of mother-daughter sexual abuse in the legal sys-
tem.—Dr. Christine Hatchard is an Associate Professor and Chair, and Dr. Jamie Goodwin-Uhler is
a Specialist Professor at Monmouth University (NJ). They are principal investigators in the Clinical
Psychology Research Center at Monmouth and have published and presented research on family
dynamics and perceptions of abuse when the mother is the primary sexual perpetrator against her
daughter. They are both psychologists in private practice.
2:30-2:45 Break
2:45-3:30
Longitudinal data on sexual offense recidivism in a population previously adjudicated
sexually dangerous
Joseph J. Plaud, Ph.D.
One of the most hotly debated areas in clinical and forensic psychology and psychiatry concerns
our ability to predict future sexual offending in light of sexual offender civil commitment laws in
20 states and within the federal government. This presentation will highlight updated outcome
data collected during the past five plus years from men who were once civilly committed in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts as sexually dangerous persons and then released back to the
community after either a jury trial or other administrative proceeding. The implications of this
data set, including re-offense rates, public policy decisions and the role of forensic psychologists
and psychiatrists will also be examined. In the end discussion will be given to the legitimacy of
sexual offender civil commitment laws and practices given the outcome data on sex offender re-
cidivism, even for men once deemed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to be the most dan-
gerous sex offenders in the state.— Joseph J. Plaud, Ph.D. is the Executive Director of Applied Be-
havioral Consultants, LLC in Providence, Rhode Island. Since 1987 he has conducted several hun-
dred psychological, psychosexual, and psychophysiological assessments on suspected and convicted
sexual offenders in inpatient, outpatient, and incarcerated settings.
43:30-4:15
Is sexual contact ever consensual when there is intimate partner violence in a relationship?
An evaluation protocol to assess risk in cross-over sex offender/domestic violence offenders
Brenna Dee Tindall, Psy.D. and Detective Sandra Campanella
Intimate partner-sexual violence (IPSV) is a phenomenon that has become a problem affecting
millions of Americans; yet, is sorely under-identified. Many who work with domestic violence
offenders argue that sexual contact is never consensual in a domestic violence relationship. Re-
grettably, domestic violence evaluations seldom include discussions of sexual risk factors. Similar-
ly, sex offender evaluations often fail to address domestic violence history and risk factors. These
“crossover” cases (both identified and non-identified) are conceptualized, assessed, and treated as
separate issues, rather than interconnected issues requiring a distinctive lens. This presentation
will offer a possible evaluation protocol that includes cross-over risk assessments, appropriate
psychological assessments, and development of a case conceptualization that differentiates the
risk for sex offending and domestic violence.—Brenna Tindall, Psy.D. was appointed by the Colo-
rado Attorney General to the Domestic Violence Fatality Review Board. Detective Sandra Campan-
ella is assigned to the Longmont Police Department in Colorado Domestic Violence Unit. She testi-
fies as an expert witness and is an instructor on the multidisciplinary team with the Ending Violence
Against Women project.
Room 2—
1:00-4:15 (PDT) Assessments (3 CE credits)
After attending the following 4 presentations in this session, the participant will be able to: 1) intro-
duce a framework for assessing the role racial microaggressions can play in police cross-racial lethal
use of force encounters; 2) explain the importance of cultural considerations when assessing cases of
alleged abuse of children; 3) describe the dynamics of consensual image sharing and how to assess
impact on victims; 4) discuss the history of punishment and the theories underlying the effectiveness
of punishment.
1:00-1:45
Forensic psychological role in screening for racial microaggressions in police:
An antiracism paradigm
Ronn Johnson, Ph.D., ABPP
Police racial violence has not taken a backseat globally during Covid-19; there remains a very
deep-seated psychocultural reality that thrives in policing even during a pandemic. The judg-
ments of police are critically important. Yet, high profile law enforcement incidents like the kill-
ings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor reinforce doubts about police problem-solving capabili-
ties in conjunction with the overlay of a pandemic and race. No police department wants to be
perceived by the public as racist. Although a focus on improving policing practices in diverse
communities is welcome, it is long overdue. Racial microaggressions activate aggravating factors
that compromise an officer’s ability to reflexively revert to training and department policies dur-
ing their response to scene management situations. This session discusses the forensic psycholog-
ical role that screening for racial microaggressions can assume in mitigating police decision-
making challenges in working in diverse communities. This presentation will 1) provide an over-
view of the way COVID-19 combines with preexisting decision making deficits during cross-
racial police scene management situations; 2) introduce a framework for assessing the role racial
microaggressions can play in police cross-racial lethal use of force encounters; 3) introduce ele-
ments of a forensically-relevant self-reprogramming approach for racial microaggressions in po-
lice officers.— Ronn Johnson, Ph.D., ABPP is a tenured full professor in the Department of Psychia-
try at Creighton School of Medicine and Associate Dean for Diversity and Inclusion. Concurrently,
he is lead clinical psychologist at the Nebraska-Western Iowa VA Health Care System. He has
5worked with over 40 law enforcement agencies and conducted thousands for evaluations for police
departments.
1:45-2:30
Cultural considerations in child abuse assessments
Hollida Wakefield
Different cultures have different standards concerning sexuality, nudity, age of marriage, family
bathing and sleeping patterns, and corporal punishment of children. These standards vary both
between cultures and between time periods. Profound changes in areas such as age of consent
have occurred over time in the United States, and in other countries and cultures. Therefore, cul-
tural factors need to be considered when assessing cases of alleged abuse of children. Actual cases
will be presented.—Hollida Wakefield is a forensic psychologist in Northfield, Minnesota, who has
been involved in cases of alleged child sexual abuse since the middle 1980s, and has written books
and articles on this topic.
2:30-2:45 Break
2:45-3:30
Similarities between nonconsensual image sharing, cyberbullying and sexual assault:
Implications for DSM-5 PTSD construct validity
Michael J. Perrotti, Ph.D.
The DSM-5 construct of PTSD is faulted in that target criteria are limited to being a victim of vio-
lence and witnessing violence. The construct fails to capture significant populations, e.g., refugees
and victims of cyberbullying. With respect to the latter group, this author finds that they exhibit
all of the cardinal symptoms of PTSD and/or complex PTSD. Transmitting intimate images of a
victim without consent is a violent act and bears similarity to sexual assault. These victims experi-
ence shaming, loss of body boundaries and cyberbullying. Assessment of trauma and complex
trauma, impact of cyberbullying, as well as treatment plans, will be discussed. Attendees will also
be exposed to the literature on the pitfalls of the DSM-5 construct of PTSD. The impact of this
trauma changes these individuals’ lives forever. These indicators are deserving of our compassion
and research efforts.—Michael J. Perrotti, Ph.D. is a clinical and forensic neuropsychologist in Brea,
California, and author of peer-reviewed publications on assessment and treatment of PTSD. He has
testified as an expert witness in cases of sexual assault and cyberbullying.
3:30-4:15
Did you feel the heat or see the light?
William K. Marek, Ph.D.
How about you? Did you change because you felt the heat or saw the light? Despite its ubiquity
(not near-ubiquity), we downplay the importance of punishment and make enlightened, profes-
sorial statements about how the literature shows us that it “doesn’t work” and how much more
effective other kinds of behavioral change can be. Contemporary scholarship on the history and
theory of punishment and what psychology, business, theology and sociology are saying about it
will be reviewed. The progress of the author’s punishment study will also be discussed. Attendees
will be able to discuss the history of punishment and how that was reflected in the policies of hu-
man discourse, politics, business, interpersonal relations and legal systems. The relationships
among punishment, its ubiquity, “seeing the light,” and psychological practice will be investigat-
ed.—William K. Marek, Ph.D. is retired from the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and is currently in pri-
vate practice and adjunct at California State University - East Bay, Napa Valley College and Cen-
tral Michigan University.
4:30-5:30 Virtual Welcome Reception
6Friday, March 19
7:15-7:45 Social chat rooms—Chat with your colleagues and friends.
8:00-12:30 (PDT) Ethics and Practice Issues (4 CE credits)
After attending the following 4 presentations in this session, the participant will be able to: 1) discuss
negative impact and psychological harm to patient who has been involved in a sexual relationship
with a therapist and the legal and ethical aspect of violation of sexual boundaries between therapist
and patient; 2) recognize common logical fallacies and apply ethical decision making in response to
logical fallacies in forensic cases; 3) discuss ways for attorneys and psychologists to address the actu-
al observed rate of sexual recidivism during direct and cross examination; 4) ) describe how to ap-
proach ethical and practice issues in practice and in court.
8:00-8:45
Sexualization of the doctor-patient relationship: A legal and ethical perspective
Jamshid Marvasti, M.D.
A romantic and sexual relationship between therapist and client is a violation of professional
boundaries and has legal and ethical consequences. The negative impact and psychological harm
to a patient due to sexual intimacy with a therapist and the psychological condition of therapists
who violate their professional responsibility will be discussed. Multiple cases of doctor-patient
sexual intimacy will be presented. Court procedure and state licensing disciplinary action will be
explored. Cases in which a relationship began years after termination of therapy will be presented,
along with the ethical and legal aspects of the cases.—Jamshid A. Marvasti, M.D. is a child and
adult psychiatrist practicing at Prospect Manchester Hospital in Manchester, CT.
8:45-9:30
Ethical judgment in forensic cases: Avoiding logical fallacies
Kristine M. Jacquin, Ph.D.
Logical fallacies are flawed forms of reasoning that often appear in forensic cases (Iudici, Salvini,
Faccio, & Castelnuovo, 2015; Merten, 2017). Forensic psychologists and attorneys may be fooled
by logical fallacies or may themselves use illogical reasoning in their work (Merten, 2017; Pope &
Vasquez, 2016). For example, research showed that forensic psychologists’ reports often show
logical fallacies related to interpreting causes of behavior (e.g., confirmation bias), making false
inferences (e.g., ad hominem arguments), and mixing fact with argument (Iudici et al., 2015).
Such judgment errors can lead to unethical practice. The purpose of this presentation is to 1) help
attendees recognize common logical fallacies, 2) evaluate how logical fallacies can occur in foren-
sic cases, and 3) apply ethical decision making in response to logical fallacies in forensic cases.—
Kristine M. Jacquin, Ph.D. is Professor of Psychology and Psychology Department Chair at Fielding
Graduate University. She is also a licensed clinical psychologist with a consulting practice focusing
on forensic and neuropsychological evaluations.
9:30-9:45 Break
9:45-10:45
Tarasoff, and duty to warn; Menendez and when a therapist (or attorney) is threatened,
and limits of confidentiality in mental health and law
Jerry L. Brittain, Ph.D. and Professor Eleanor Morales, J.D.
The 1969 murder of Tatiana Tarasoff in California resulted in two cases where the State Supreme
Court weighed in on confidentiality when a patient threatens to harm another person. The 1974
7court decision famously mandated that a therapist has a duty to warn an intended victim. This
case was appealed and reheard in 1976. The court then mandated that a treating therapist also had
a duty to protect. In a separate California case, brothers Lyle and Eric Menendez were arrested
and tried for the 1989 murder of their wealthy parents. Their first separate trials ended in hung
juries. Their second trial in 1994 ended with both being convicted and sentenced to life in prison.
The older brother threatened the life of a psychologist who was treating the younger brother. Like
the Tarasoff case, this changed state law and the APA code of ethics, which says a therapist can
terminate therapy if he/she is threatened. As not all states have a Tarasoff statute, the didactics
will focus on the four “prongs” of a Tarasoff intervention, and what a therapist can do if a state
does not have a statute covering such behavior. Discussion will focus on limits of confidentiality
in mental health and in law.—Jerry L. Brittain, Ph.D. is a clinical psychologist and neuropsycholo-
gist currently living in North Carolina. Dr. Brittain works at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center,
in Winston Salem, N.C. Professor Eleanor Morales, J.D. is a law professor at Wake Forest Law
School.
10:45-12:30
Forensic skills workshop: The role of the psychologist in civil and criminal litigation
Dr. Elliot Atkins, Elizabeth Kelley, J.D., Thomas Haworth, Ph.D., Valerie R. McClain, Psy.D.,
John H. White, Ph.D.
This forensic skills forum will focus on issues in civil and criminal law that interface with psy-
chology and expert testimony by psychologists. This is an interactive session involving moderator,
panelists and audience on advanced ethical and practice issues confronting the forensic psycholo-
gist. Vignettes submitted to the panel by practicing forensic psychologists will be read aloud and
discussed. The vignettes describe problems and experiences that forensic psychologists often con-
front in their practices and in court. Attendees will be exposed to a wide variety of forensic cases
and problems in civil and criminal areas.—Dr. Elliot Atkins (Moderator) is in private practice in
Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Elizabeth Kelley is a criminal defense attorney who specializes in rep-
resenting individuals with mental illness, as well as individuals with intellectual disabilities. Thom-
as F. Haworth, Ph.D. is a licensed psychologist in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Valerie R. McClain,
Psy.D. is a licensed psychologist in private practice in Tampa, Florida. John H. White, Ph.D. is a
Professor of Psychology at Stockton University in Atlantic City, New Jersey.
11:30-11:45 Break
12:30-1:15 Lunch Break (12:45-1:05 Breakout social chat rooms—
Chat with your colleagues and friends.)
1:15-4:35 (PDT) Murder/Capital Punishment (3 CE credits)
After attending the following 4 presentations in this session, the participant will be able to: 1) list the
neuropsychological and sociological contributors to mass murder, and explain behaviors that may
warn others that someone is about to attempt to commit a mass murder ; 2) identify issues related
to the use of self-report, selection of respondents, questions, collateral information, and clinical
judgment in adaptive functioning evaluations of immigrants facing the death penalty; 3) discuss
how a formulation based in affective neuroscience may better explain rape and serial murder than
DSM-5 diagnoses; 4) plan what the role of a psychologist should be when faced with a situation
where a client poses a threat to an individual who may be harmed by a client or patient.
81:15-2:00
Neuropsychology of mass murder
John H. White, Ph.D.
Mass murders are especially terrifying because victims are targeted by where they happen to be at
the time, not who they are or what their relationship is to the killer. Victims could be sitting in
church or a movie theatre, attending a concert or gathered in a school. Since 1966, there have
been at least 165 public mass shootings killing almost 2,000 people. The deadliest mass shootings
have occurred the past 10 years. These numbers do not include mass murders in families, rob-
beries, or gang violence. What makes a person want to kill as many strangers as he/she can? Is it a
brain disorder, or does the environment contribute to these horrendous acts? What are the red
flags that could possibly identify potential mass shooters? The neuropsychological and sociologi-
cal contributors to mass murder and behaviors that may warn others that someone is about to
attempt to commit a mass murder will be addressed.—John H. White, Ph.D. is a former Dallas
Police Investigator Sergeant who was assigned to Patrol, Psychological Services, Internal Affairs, and
the Fugitive and Special Investigations Unit. He is currently a Professor of Psychology at Stockton
University in Atlantic City, New Jersey.
2:00-2:45
Adaptive functioning evaluations of foreign nationals facing capital punishment:
Distinctive issues
Diomaris E. Safi, Psy.D. and David Sylva, Ph.D.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against applying the death penalty to individuals with ID (Atkins v.
Virginia, 2002). Current ID guidelines emphasize the need to determine severity of impairment
based on adaptive functioning (AF) rather than IQ test scores alone (APA, 2013). Assessing AF in
immigrants is a challenge because their cultural backgrounds are different than those of measure
standardization samples. Often, capital defendants are also raised in impoverished areas with lim-
ited access to documentation, complicating compiling a social history. We present a case study of
a Mexican national seeking exemption from capital punishment. We offer a framework for un-
derstanding what can be determined and judging the quality of an AF evaluation.—Dr. Safi is a
licensed psychologist specializing in neuropsychological and forensic evaluations. She has worked
with civil and criminal attorneys on state and federal cases in the U.S. and Mexico. Dr. Sylva is a
psychologist in Los Angeles with a background in adult cognitive and personality assessment.
2:45-3:00 Break
3:00-3:45
Disorganized attachment, complex trauma, and pathological dissociation in a serial murderer
Francis Abueg, Ph.D., BCETS
Andrew Urdiales confessed to killing eight women, three in Illinois and five in California, be-
tween 1988 and 1996. He was sentenced to death in Illinois but his sentence was commuted to life
without parole when the death penalty was abolished in that state. He was extradited to California
to face another death penalty trial. Fourteen forensic psychiatric and psychological evaluations
were reviewed for this trial in addition to voluminous discovery and novel family history data.
Emergent themes included evidence of disorganized attachment, Tourette’s Syndrome, fetal alco-
hol syndrome, complex PTSD and pathological dissociation. A forensic case formulation will in-
tegrate these data from a cross-cutting, affective neuroscience perspective.—Francis Abueg, Ph.D.,
BCETS is a psychologist and owner of TraumaResource: Clinical and Forensic Psychology in
Sunnyvale and Cupertino, California.
93:45-4:35
Shining light on the dark figure of sexual recidivism
Brian R. Abbott, Ph.D.
Sexual recidivism actuarial measures have been criticized for having a poor fit to the legally de-
fined sexual reoffense criteria necessary to justify the civil confinement of sexually violent preda-
tors. This session will critically examine attempts to estimate the actual observed sexual reoffense
rate unconstrained by official reporting sources with an emphasis on a statistical model published
by Scurich and John (2018). Participants will be able to describe the major attempts to account for
undetected sexual recidivism and the flaws in these models; analyze the efficacy of the Monte Car-
lo simulation model to produce valid actual observed sexual recidivism rates; and discuss ways for
attorneys and psychologists to address the actual observed rate of sexual recidivism during direct
and cross examination.—Brian R. Abbott, Ph.D., a clinician, forensic evaluator, author, researcher,
and trainer in the area of child sexual abuse, child abuse and neglect, has performed more than
2,000 forensic evaluations for criminal, civil, dependency, and family courts.
Saturday, March 20
7:15-7:45 Social chat rooms—Chat with your colleagues and friends.
8:00-12:30 (PDT) Competency/Forensic Evaluations and Assessments (4 CE credits)
After attending the following 6 presentations in this session, the participant will be able to: 1) discuss
the implications of special education history in the context of legal proceedings with attorneys; 2)
describe a collaborative approach in custody cases between the evaluator, the expert (e.g., educa-
tional psychologist), and the attorney, particularly in move away and parent fitness cases; 3) identi-
fy the components of a neuropsychological fitness for duty evaluation; 4) discuss ethical issues and
best practices in competency evaluations when amnesia is claimed; 5) list and describe literature
and case law discussing neuroscience techniques applied where competence is at issue; 6
8:00-8:45
Special education history: Implications for forensic assessment
Rebecca Smith-Casey JD/PsyD
It is estimated that at least one in three people arrested in the U.S. has a history of special educa-
tion, with others estimating that upwards of 70% of those arrested have a special education histo-
ry, ranging from learning disabilities to emotional disabilities. In the context of forensic assess-
ment, issues related to learning disabilities can have wide ranging implications for how a forensic
evaluation is conducted, including the appropriateness of various measures and issues related to
competency, particularly for waiver of Miranda. This presentation will highlight considerations
for conducting a forensic evaluation for an individual who discloses a history of special education,
means of gaining collateral information, alternative measures, implications for communication,
and implications for juvenile defendants.—Rebecca Smith-Casey, JD/PsyD is a certified school psy-
chologist and licensed clinical psychologist who presently conducts psychosexual evaluations in Phil-
adelphia, as well as working in private practice engaging in forensic evaluations.
108:45-9:30
The how, what and why of education related opinion making for custody evaluators,
courts, and attorneys
Mark Burdick, Ph.D., AFBsS and Jonathan Gould, Ph.D., ABPP
The custody evaluator (CE) is instructed by courts to serve the “best interests of the child.” The
CE must give ample consideration to parent personality, time shared with child, and education
and therapeutic needs. However, education needs are often passed to the duty of the parent, ig-
noring the needs of the child, and creating an incomplete custody evaluation. Enter the educa-
tional psychologist (LEP); board licensed and trained to work through the learning (exceptional
or typical), behavioral, social requirements of the child. LEPs exist in the U.S. and UK, and work
in private practice and with school districts and agencies to meet the education and treatment
needs of children. How the LEP collaborates with evaluators to significantly improve custody and
court opinions will be demonstrated.—Mark Burdick, Ph.D., AFBsS is an expert in education and
psychological matters before courts in the U.S. and UK. Jonathan Gould is a board certified forensic
psychologist who provides consultation, work-product review, litigation support, and other forensic
psychological activities to attorneys across the country.
9:30-9:45 Break
9:45-10:30
Neuroscience and competence to stand trial: A lawyer’s literature
John Philipsborn, M.Ed., J.D., MAS
Academics focused on the relationship between neuroscience and the courts have pointed out
that the assessment of competence to stand trial is one area in which there has been an evident
interest in the use of neuroscience techniques including brain imaging (both structural and func-
tional). This presentation will review both recent literature and court rulings that combine to ex-
plain how and why some of the techniques associated with neuroscience are being discussed as
worthy of consideration in competence assessments. Attendees will be able to discuss the context
in which courts have examined the utility of neuroscience-based evidence as corroborating the
need for concern about an individual’s competence to stand trial. Attendees will be able to explain
the reasoning behind the interest that courts and lawyers may have in obtaining guidance on
competence questions that may call for input from neuroscientists.—John Philipsborn has prac-
ticed criminal defense law for more than 40 years. He has litigated many complex cases both at trial
and in reviewing courts including capital and non-capital homicide cases. He had figured as counsel
of record, or as amicus counsel, in more than 90 decisions of reviewing courts, including the U.S.
Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court.
10:30-11:15
Forensic neuropsychological fitness for duty evaluation of healthcare professionals:
Role of norms, aging, brain injury, and culture
Amir Ramezani, Ph.D.
The presentation will describe the elements of fitness for duty (FFD) evaluation of healthcare pro-
fessionals, and forensic consideration. The presentation outlines the role of forensic psychologists
and neuropsychologists in helping to answer basic questions about fitness, capacity, head inju-
ry/mild traumatic brain injury, and a functional work-related task. Limitations of tests, norms,
aging, and cultural factors are also highlighted. Participants will be able to 1) identify the compo-
nents of a neurocognitive fitness for duty evaluation; 2) describe how to compare cognitive test
results in relation to premorbid functioning and use of normative data; 3) describe how culture,
age, education, and brain injury/mild TBI play a role in decision making about a professional’s
ability to competently work.—Dr. Amir Ramezani is a Neuropsychologist/Associate Clinical Profes-
11sor, and Director of the Neuropsychology & Health Psychology Training Program at the University
of California, Davis.
11:15-11:30 Break
11:30-12:30
Why mental health professionals should not evaluate certain types of criminal competency:
Isn’t that the judge’s job?
Marc L. Zimmermann, Ph.D., MP, Daniel P. Greenfield, M.D., Edward J. Dougherty Ed.D.
A position endorsed by some early contemporary forensic psychiatry practitioners held that
“…forensic experts are out of their element in entering into the moral and legal dimensions of the
adversarial system and, therefore, should not be there in the first place…” While we do not our-
selves fully agree with that position, we do agree that under some conditions in criminal compe-
tency assessments—evaluees who claim memory loss, actual or feigned—such assessments should
be left to the lawyers and the judges, and not to forensic mental health practitioners. Best practices
in competency evaluations when amnesia is claimed, and how to deal with the ethics in decision
making when data is dubious will be discussed.—Marc L. Zimmermann, Ph.D., MP has worked
with the courts in providing competency evaluations for juvenile and adult defendants in multiple
jurisdictions. Daniel P. Greenfield, M.D. has been working in forensic psychiatry for more than 30
years. Edward J. Dougherty Ed.D. is a forensic psychologist with more than 30 years of experience.
Drs. Greenfield and Dougherty have provided competency evaluations in multiple jurisdictions.
12:30-1:15 Lunch Break (12:45-1:05 Breakout social chat rooms—
Chat with your colleagues and friends.)
1:15-4:30 (PDT) Competency/Forensic Evaluations and Assessments (3 CE credits)
After attending the following 4 presentations in this session, the participant will be able to: 1)) dis-
cuss how memory impairments impact the functional requirements of competency; 2) explain clini-
cal and assessment findings in a current population of qualifying relatives in deportation cases; 3)
summarize interrogation and defendant characteristics which can impact competency; 4) discuss the
utility of a multi-element support plan in decreasing the frequency of recidivism for people with in-
tellectual and developmental disabilities.
1:15-2:00
Amnesia implication in criminal competency evaluations
Robert Meyer, Ph.D.
The presentation will discuss the impact of amnesia and memory lapse impact on fitness to stand
trial evaluations. The Dusky standard for competency will be covered and People v. Schwartz
(1985) will be reviewed. Memory problems related to head trauma, substance abuse, dementia
and other forms of encephalopathy will be reviewed. A 2019 murder trial in which the issue of
fitness was raised because of the defendant’s partial memory impairment will be discussed. How
memory impairments impact the functional requirements of competency, how memory impair-
ments are detected, and appropriate procedures to detect malingering of memory difficulties will
be discussed.—Robert Meyer, Ph.D. is chief clinical psychologist for the Mather’s Clinics, and ad-
junct professor of forensic psychology at Walden University.
122:00-2:45
Assessments of children whose parents are in deportation proceedings:
Clinical data evidences a worsening of psychological symptoms atypical of peers
Megan B. Seltz, Ph.D.
This presentation concerns the adverse psychological effects on families in deportation proceed-
ings known as Cancellation of Removal (COR). The qualifying relatives, usually children, are re-
ferred to me to help explain the hardship they would suffer in the event of a deportation. During
the Spring and Summer of 2019, clinical and assessment indicators were noteworthy for initial
clinical impressions of worsening psychopathology in the children. Three groups were evaluated
and evidenced a range of psychopathology and other indicators of clinical concern, including self-
injurious behavior, hospitalizations, and need to outreach schools and pediatricians. Generally,
these children evinced distress atypical of their same-age peers.—Dr. Megan Seltz is a bilingual
clinical psychologist in private practice in New York City. The practice is devoted to evaluation and
treatment of forensic cases, and people with complicated clinical presentations.
2:45-3:00 Break
3:00-3:45
Institutional alternatives for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities
in the criminal justice system
Lori Ann Dotson, Ph.D.
Challenges related to the assessment of, and treatment planning for, individuals in the criminal
justice system with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) are many. A Comprehensive
Functional Assessment (CFA) can assist us in understanding the meaning(s) of an individual’s
behavior and can serve as the foundation for developing a multi-element behavior support plan
(MEBS) that has the greatest likelihood of decreasing problem behavior to maintain the individu-
al’s safety as well as that of the community, and to assist the individual in developing the neces-
sary prosocial behaviors to create and maintain a valued community role.—Dr. Lori Ann Dotson
is Director of Preventative Services at the Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis. Dr. Dotson has
over 25 years of experience working with individuals and families impacted by substance abuse,
mental health challenges and/or intellectual and developmental disabilities.
3:45-4:30
Assessing competency to waive Miranda rights: Conceptual and forensic considerations
James W. Schutte, Ph.D. and Christopher W. Schutte
The assessment of competency to waive Miranda rights is an area in which forensic psychologists
can contribute, either through academic testimony or by an assessment of the defendant. Compe-
tency assessment in this area requires an examination of the particulars of the interrogation, as
well as consideration of defendant characteristics, such as age, intelligence, oral and reading com-
prehension, and psychotic or neurodevelopmental diagnoses which have the potential to impair
competency in this area. Attendees will be able to describe case law addressing competency to
waive Miranda rights, will learn of the interrogation and defendant characteristics which can im-
pact competency, will learn to develop an effective assessment of the defendant, and will receive
suggestions for effective defense of one’s conclusions in this matter.—James W. Schutte, Ph.D. is a
bilingual psychologist in private practice in El Paso, Texas. He has performed numerous assessments
of competency to waive Miranda rights. Christopher W. Schutte is a student at Brown University.
13You can also read
